April 16, 2011

There is a reason why the law draws the line at 0.5%, and JoAnne Kloppenburg ought to ask herself whether she should take advantage of getting in just under the line or whether she should see 0.48% as so close to that line that the same reason really does apply. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and this is a test of character. Ms. Kloppenburg would do well now to give a gracious concession speech.

Unless she thinks she can come up with those votes, what's the point of asking for a recount? To keep the cameras around another week? Is it that much fun to be at the center of controversy in a branch of government where it is vitally important there be no controversy?

(A search of the professor's comment sections would show, if anyone so bothered, that I am consistent on this point. I also said that Prosser, when he was 200 votes down, should not ask for a recount.)

I was reminded here, that for liberals, it is never about doing the right thing, but rather, about winning. I first realized that with Al Gore's attempt to gain the Presidency through recounting only three counties using highly suspect standards, while attempting to deprive as many acting service members their vote as his people could through excessive reliance on formalities.

In short, bending the rules almost to the breaking point when it would advantage him, and then sticking to them in picky detail, when it would advantage him. I.e. winning at any and all costs.

Then, we have seen this sort of thing played out, time and again, since then. Al Franken. Switching in Lautenberg for the NJ Senate seat after it was too late under the law. And, yes, President Obama apparently turning off credit card verification to allow foreign and corporate contributions after rejecting matching funds.

They will waste money on this, but only tax-payer money. They will raise money from their base with claims about how they need to fight the evil Prosser/Walker/Koch, but they money they raise will be saved for recalls and/or future elections.

Hayden: I first realized that with Al Gore's attempt to gain the Presidency through recounting only three counties using highly suspect constantly changing standards, while attempting to deprive as many acting service members their vote as his people could through excessive reliance on formalities

Come on, Ann - when she was asked to stop the videos and didn't, she defined her character. That's why I've focused on nothing else: we got to know everything we needed to understand about her in that single episode.

She will request a recount, at taxpayer's expense, because that's who she is.

Dimpled chads to pregnant chads- "intent" of the voter is highly subjective

But thats not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about changing the rules, day to day, depending upon how those rules help Al Gore net votes. A ballot with a tear and a 2 holes counts the day they are handcounting Gore undervotes, but then does not count the next day when they are handcounting counties that went for Bush.

Wait a minute ... if Kloppenhoppen can steal more votes ... and for argument's sake ... let's say she's back to her 200-vote spread ... would that mean she's already given her acceptance speech?

You know the numbers I'd like to see ... if there's a recount? Milwaukee's spread between Kloppenhoppen ... and ANYONE ELSE ON THE BALLOT! Why were ballots printed that had so much information on them ... if 18,000 ballots are counted for Kloppenhoppen that held only one checkmark?

You go to vote ... You take a ballot ... and then ... you distain voting ... even in the mayor's race?

Since the mayor's race was a hot one ... what's his totals?

By 2012 ... the demon-rats should have a computer system that keeps a running total always ahead ... for Obama.

Given that you can go to an ATM ... and press some buttons ... and get just the cash you requested ... How come banks are honest brokers ... and the election system is so corrupt?

You mean to tell me people are supposed to be impressed that Prosser's lead suddenly fell short by .02% of a half vote?

The answer is yes, the Republicans would do just that - give a gracious speech and step down. That is what Nixon did in 1960 and he certainly had plenty of ways to contest that vote. Neither side was particularly clean in that one but the question of the votes in Chicago was really blatant. Yet Tricky Dick was man enough to give a gracious speech and step down. Too bad Gore did not have that much class or his reputation would be much better now than it is. He lost his own reputation because of his actions in Florida in 2000. Kloppenburg should indeed give a gracious speech and step aside. That way she might get back some reputation and be ready to fight another day.

When the margin was ~200 votes, before a systemic error was exposed, was the Prosser team getting ready to fund the then-inevitable recount? Maybe the right should work to overturn the rule that says the state will pay for any requested recount in close elections. But I happen to believe the state should pay, in either case, and in good faith, as it is the state's responsibility to at least attempt to guarantee that elections are free and fair. You simply cannot deny that the Waukesha errors are serious and disturbing. What if the Dane clerk had forgotten to count Middleton? What would your position be then? Humans counted ballots all over the state; are they all infallible? [Please try not to call me names if you respond to this. Concentrate on the actual issue -- an election for a state office with an evident human error where the difference is a slim margin within the threshold for a state-funded recount -- and not on me or either of the candidates personally. Thanks!]

My position is clear. There should have been a statewide recount in Florida in 2000. Kloppenburg should ask for a statewide recount in Wisconsin today. Had Prosser lost by 200 votes in the first official tally, he should have asked for a statewide recount.

Recounts cost money, but so do elections. We spend the money because elections and recounts pay for themselves in the currency of legitimacy.